Age discrimination lawsuits filed by judges moved to federal court

We are currently undergoing updates to our site and are working to improve your experience on all devices that you use throughout your day. If you should find a page or a story that is not working correctly, please click here.

Thank you for your patience,

TribLIVE.com Team

Two civil lawsuits in which eight county judges are contesting a mandate that forces them to retire at age 70 have been moved to federal court.

Westmoreland County Judge John Driscoll is one of six plaintiffs in one of the suits, while Fayette County President Judge Gerald R. Solomon is one of two plaintiffs in the other. The two lawsuits, filed in Commonwealth Court in November, name Gov. Tom Corbett as one of four defendants.

Driscoll and Solomon must retire at the end of the year because of a state mandate that forces judges into retirement when they reach age 70. They and the other judges contend the mandatory retirement provision, which went into effect in 1969, is age discrimination that violates their constitutional rights.

On Wednesday, Corbett and one of the other defendants, state secretary Carol T. Aichele, filed notice removing the two lawsuits from Commonwealth Court to U.S. District Court for the Middle of Pennsylvania.

In a removal petition, Attorney General Linda L. Kelly said the cases should be in federal court because they assert 14th Amendment claims of equal protection and due process.

The other two defendants in the lawsuit are Treasurer Robert McCord and court administrator Zygmont A. Pines.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our
Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent
via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.